RERA Registration Not Required Where Leasehold Developer Has No Right to Sell Units: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority v. M/s Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP
Case No.: RERA Appeal No. 169 of 2025
Court: Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Decision Date: May 8, 2026

The Allahabad High Court has held that a developer holding only leasehold rights in a property, without the legal authority to sell apartments, plots or buildings, does not fall within the definition of a "promoter" under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held that where the developer's rights are confined to developing the property and creating sub-leases, and it has no right to sell the units, the project does not qualify as a "real estate project" requiring registration under RERA.

Dispute Over Registration of 'Samrajya' Project

The case concerned the proposed "Samrajya" project in Ayodhya, being developed by M/s Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP.

The land belonged to a public charitable trust, Udasin Sangat Rishi Aashram, Ranopali, Ayodhya. The trust had executed a registered lease dated September 29, 2023, in favour of the developer for a period of 29 years and 11 months.

The lease permitted construction of a commercial building and contained provisions permitting sub-leasing of the property.

The developer subsequently applied to U.P. RERA for registration of the project. However, the Authority raised objections concerning the nature of the leasehold rights and the developer's authority to create sub-leases in respect of the trust property.

U.P. RERA ultimately rejected the registration application.

RERA Appellate Tribunal Had Directed Registration

The developer challenged the rejection before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), Lucknow.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed U.P. RERA to register the project and issue the registration number, Login ID and password within seven days.

U.P. RERA thereafter approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act, challenging the Tribunal's decision.

High Court Examines Whether Leasehold Project Falls Under RERA

The High Court considered, among other issues, whether a real estate project could be developed and registered under RERA on land taken on lease for 29 years and 11 months when the developer did not possess the right to sell the apartments or buildings.

The Court examined the definitions of "promoter" under Section 2(zk) and "real estate project" under Section 2(zn) of the RERA Act.

It noted that the statutory definition of a real estate project contemplates development for the purpose of selling apartments, plots or buildings.

Right to Sell Held to Be Essential

The Court found that the lease deed did not confer upon the developer a right to sell the property. Instead, the relevant clauses permitted the developer to create sub-leases.

The Court therefore held that mere possession of leasehold rights is not sufficient to make a person a "promoter" under RERA.

The judgment observed that the status of a promoter is determined not merely by possession or a leasehold interest, but by the developer's role in developing and selling units in a real estate project.

According to the Court, a lessee who does not sell units to prospective allottees does not fall within the statutory definition of a promoter.

RERA Registration Not Mandatory

The Court concluded that the purpose of sale is a necessary element for attracting the provisions of RERA relating to real estate projects.

Since Maa Bhagwati Commercial Reality N Resorts LLP did not have the legal authority under its lease to sell the apartments, plots or buildings, the proposed project did not fall within the ambit of the RERA Act.

Consequently, the Court held that the developer was neither required to obtain RERA registration nor could it be compelled to obtain registration for the project.

Tribunal's Direction to Register Project Set Aside

The High Court consequently disposed of the appeal and held that U.P. RERA was under no obligation to issue a registration number, Login ID or password pursuant to the developer's application.

The Authority was also directed to withdraw the Form-D communication containing prohibitory and restrictive clauses issued in relation to the project.

The Court concluded that the RERA framework is attracted to projects undertaken for the purpose of sale to prospective allottees, and not to a development where the developer merely holds leasehold rights and can only create sub-leases.

Key Takeaway

The judgment draws an important distinction between leasehold development rights and the statutory concept of a promoter under RERA.

According to the High Court, possession of land under a long-term lease, by itself, does not trigger RERA registration. The crucial consideration is whether the developer has the legal authority to develop and sell apartments, plots or buildings to prospective allottees.

Where the developer has no right to sell and is limited to creating sub-leases, the project would not constitute a "real estate project" for the purposes of mandatory registration under RERA.

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case No.: MA No. 105 of 2025
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Coram: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) where the complaint discloses a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the expression “aggrieved person” occurring in Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 35 of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, is of wide amplitude. The Court held that merely because there is no written document evidencing the allotment of a real estate property or an agreement between the parties, RERA's jurisdiction cannot automatically be excluded.

The dispute arose out of a complaint filed by Y.P. Goel and Associates, alleging that Fortune Resources and Properties LLP had entered into an oral arrangement for allotment and sale of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., at Rama World, High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for a consideration of ₹75 lakh.

The complainant alleged that it had paid ₹5 lakh on December 31, 2020, ₹10 lakh on February 3, 2021 and a further ₹10 lakh on September 6, 2022 towards the proposed transaction. It was further alleged that despite the payments, possession of the shop was not handed over and no sale deed was executed. According to the complainant, the amount of ₹25 lakh was ultimately returned after approximately three years.

After a legal notice was issued on April 5, 2024, Fortune Resources denied the existence of any oral agreement and disputed the alleged allotment of the shop.

RERA, by its order dated July 31, 2024, dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the material on record did not clearly establish payment of sale consideration in respect of the alleged transaction. RERA consequently held that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction under the RERA Act.

The complainant thereafter approached the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). By order dated April 4, 2025, the Tribunal set aside RERA's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that an oral agreement could be examined within the RERA framework and that the complainant could fall within the expression “aggrieved person”.

Fortune Resources challenged the REAT's order before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. It contended that mere payment or deposit of money could not confer the status of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. According to the appellant, there had to be an application or request for allotment, its acceptance by the promoter and a consequential allotment.

The High Court, however, found that RERA had considered the matter primarily from the perspective of the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) without adequately considering the scope of Section 31, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Authority in respect of a violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations.

The Court noted that the pleadings disclosed a transaction involving payment of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop. It observed that the existence and nature of such transaction required appropriate consideration and could not be rejected merely because there was no written allotment document or agreement.

The Court also noted that RERA's order did not indicate whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, including the calling for relevant documents or evidence, had been followed. According to the Court, the Authority ought to have undertaken the requisite enquiry before reaching a conclusion on the complaint.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal. It directed RERA to reconsider and decide the complaint in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 55 of the REAT's order and in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that the absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude RERA's jurisdiction. Where the pleadings disclose a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset, the Authority must examine the material and conduct the appropriate enquiry before determining whether the complainant is entitled to relief under the RERA Act.

P&H High Court - Authority has no power or jurisdiction to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration

 In the Matter of M/S Parador Developers ... vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority RERA Appeal No.19 of 2020 decided on 27 November, 2020 before THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Fact of the Matter

• Vide request dated 13.10.2017, the appellant sought permission for change of land use of an area measuring 93.265 acres for development of a residential colony. 
• The Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, granted permission for change of land use vide its memo dated 17.10.2017. 
• Consequently, an application for grant of licence was made to the Amritsar Development Authority, who, granted the licence vide its memo dated 13.06.2019. Licence period was 5 years ending on 12.06.2024. 
• Thus, application dated 10.09.2019 was filed before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority) for registration of Phase-I of the residential colony under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
• A declaration in Form-B was also filed stating that the development 1 of 8 work would be completed on or before 12.06.2024. 
• Phase-I was registered but the validity thereof was reduced by one year i.e. upto 12.06.2023. 
• The appellant sought a clarification and vide memo dated 13.11.2019. 
• The Authority clarified that registration was uptill 12.06.2023 only as the group housing component was not being executed in Phase-I. 
• Thus, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.2 but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2020.  (This Order is published on this blog on 18.05.2021)
• Hence, the present appeal has been filed under Section 58 of the Act.

Order of the High Court 

 It is held that the Authority has no power or jurisdiction to reduce the time period mentioned in the declaration. If it feels that the period mentioned is arbitrary or unacceptable due to any reasons, a notice to show cause for rejection of the application must be given.

Supreme Court - High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved

 In the case of Gurudev Kaur and others -vs- Kaki and others [(2007) 1 SCC 546, the Apex Court held that after the 1976 Amendment, the scope of Section 100 has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down, according to the amended section,

(i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved;

(ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question;

(iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal;

(iv) Another part of the Section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question".

It was also held by the Apex court that 

(i) On the day when the second appeal is listed for hearing on admission if the High

Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law is involved, it shall dismiss the

second appeal without even formulating the substantial question of law;

(ii) In cases where the High Court after hearing the appellate is satisfied that the

substantial question of law is involved, it shall formulate that question and then the

 appeal shall be heard on those substantial questions of

law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the Respondent;

(iii) In no circumstances the High Court can reverse the judgment of the trial court

and the first appellate court without formulating the substantial question of law and

complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure".

in the matter of Nazir Mohamed Vs. J.Kamala and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 684 wherein after examination of precedents, it has been held:-

"32. To be "substantial", a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled

by the law of the land or any binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on

the decision of the case and/or the rights of the parties before it, if answered either

way."